DATE OF FILING : 04-11-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 03-12-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-07-2014.
Rabi Das ,
son of late Jagat Das,
Goyalbati Das Para, Mourigram Station Para,
P.O. Unsani, P.S. Jagacha, Ward No. 46,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 302. .-------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. WBSEDCL,
Supply office at Andul Mouri,
C.C.C. in office of the S.M.P.O. Andul Mouri,
District – Howrah.
2. Smt. Himala Das,
wife of Sri Shambhu Das,
residing at village – Unsani, P.S. Jagacha,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 302. ----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 as
amended against the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(o) prayed for direction upon the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority to provide power supply through separate service connection together with compensation and litigation costs as the O.P. namely O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority in spite of observing the necessary formalities by the complainant, has been deferring the supply of electricity for want of free access at the complainant schedule premises.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant being a occupier applied
before the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority on 16-08-2013 and duly been registered by the licensee with EMD for Rs. 200/- for new service connection at the schedule premises. The inspection was scheduled to be fixed on 25-08-2013 and could not be accelerated by the licensee i.e. O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority due to objection raised by the O.P. no.2. Hence the case.
3. The O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority in their written version contended
interalia that at the time of inspection the O.P. no. 2 raised objection against the proposed new electric service connection and ready and willing to effect the electric connection at his occupied portion of the complainant if free access is available at the schedule premises.
4. The O.P. no. 2 on the other hand vide their written version stated that the
She has filed a suit before the 6th Court Ld. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division ) at Howrah being no. T.S. 27 of 2014 which is also pending before the ld. Court and further opined that his answering o.p. is absolute owner and occupier the demarcated property measuring 11 chattaks 27 sq. ft. with all sorts of easement including the common passage by virtue of a registered deed of purchase dated 22-03-2014 and got delivery of vacant peaceful possession. He has no objection to effect the connection if the line which is scheduled to pass over within 4’ common passage then this answering the O.P. has got no objection but they are illegally and willfully getting electric connection upon making fictitious 6’ wide passage which is absolutely imaginary, illegal, incorrect and liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. no. 1
WBSEDCL Authority?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
6. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Since the complainant
being a lawful owner is suffered for want of electricity and the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority is willing to effect the new service connection, the objection raised by the O.P. no. 2 ( co-sharer ) cannot sustain at this critical juncture as per Electricity Act ( 36 of 2003 ), Ss 43, 176, 67 – Works of Licensee Rules ( 2006 ) which runs as under :
“Persons in settled possession of property be it trespasser, unauthorized encroacher squatter of any premises, can apply for supply electricity without consent of co-sharer – Is entitled to get electricity and enjoy same by due process of law.” [ Reference W.B. no. 423 of 2010, dated 11-02-2011 before the Hon’ble High Court registered AIR 2011 Cal P-64 ].
7. From the above we have our considered opinion that under Electricity Act,
2003, occupier has a statutory right, and licensee as distribution company has a statutory obligation to give electric connection to occupier – Pendency of suit with the other co-sharers with interim injunction against the petitioner, the electric connection cannot change nature and character of the property.
Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has a genuine demand and in view of the present position of law as elaborated, his demand requires to be fulfilled.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 384 of 2013 ( HDF 384 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority and dismissed against o.p. no. 2 but without cost.
The O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority be directed to provide new service connection after conducting site inspection with realizing service connection charges and security deposit money if require within 45 days from the date of this order giving top most priority.
The o.p. no. 2 is hereby restrained from causing any disturbance at the time of effecting the new service connection at the schedule premises as mentioned in the complaint.
If thereby any resistance by anyone including the o.p. no. 2 against this new service connection, the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority shall be at liberty to take necessary assistance or protection from Jagacha P.S. The I/C Jagacha P.S. shall be under obligation to provide necessary assistance or protection to the men and officers of the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority. for providing power supply to the complainant in case of approach made by the O.P. no. 1 WBSEDCL Authority.
No costs both compensation and litigation are awarded.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
